• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
Today Michigan Open Carry, Inc. was served a temporary restraining order from Capital Area District Library(CADL). This order bans MOC members and it affiliates from open carrying into the CADL's libraries. We ask that for now you refrain from OCing there for the time being. We will be having a hearing on February 24, 2011 at 11:00am. The court is located at 303 W. Kalamazoo, 2nd Floor, Lansing, MI. MAP

MOC has retained legal counsel to represent us in this matter. We ask all who can to come out to show your support. This case can have huge implications on 2A rights.

TRO
 
Last edited:

mastiff69

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
573
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
So has anyone contacted the Judge's bosses (AG), to see how they are going to correct this violation of law ?

Or are we going to just get the PA-53 dismissed ?

Oh never mind i forgot i'm just a layman, seek legal counsel & cross our fingers :)

GRRR !!!!!
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
My thought is same as Mastiff's. Call the AG's office. This was after all decided after Ferndale's former mayor Chuck Goedert decided he was smarter than the law and caused MCRGO vs Ferndale. This is merely a repeat of the same arrogance. It's the AG's place to stop these things. The feds could also be asked to help out due to color of law statutes, but the AG's office really needs to handle this. Last I talked to them, which was in the era of Mike Cox, they definitely made it sound like they would put an end to gun rights abuses from city governments.
 
Last edited:

TheSzerdi

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Melvindale, Michigan, USA
[sarcasm] It's great that a government run, tax funded, public service can file a restraining order against an entire non-profit corporation for engaging in a legal activity. [/sarcasm]
 

MarineSgt

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Allendale, Michigan, USA
It seems CADL's argument against pre-emption is like this:

If the City of Detroit changed their name to the Authority of Detroit, then they would be exempt as they are no longer considered a "local unit of government". My three year old has stronger logic skills than those who work at CADL.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
We will be having a hearing on February 24, 2011 at 11:00am. . . . We ask all who can to come out to show your support. This case can have huge implications on 2A rights.

What kind of hearing is this? Is it preliminary to anything else, or is it a day arguments are made and this judge decides whether the TRO stands or falls? I may be able to burn a vacation day and carpool others with me, but I wouldn't want to burn it and gas for anything but the most effective day to be there.

Even if it *looks* like *the* day, is it possible/likely/certain CADL would ask for postponement and the judge possibly/likely/certainly would grant postponement?

Your counsel probably has a good feel for all these questions. What does he think?

I gotta ask these questions, because vacation days are scarce and important, and the answers to these questions aren't clear from the info so far.
 
Last edited:

DetroitBiker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
318
Location
USA

"A temporary restraining order granted to the Capital Area District Library on Wednesday is designed to keep members of Michigan Open Carry or any associated people from bringing weapons into the library or any of its branches.
The restraining order was granted the same day an 18-year-old Lansing man attended a CADL meeting at the downtown Lansing location with a gun. Lansing police were called to the scene and determined the gun was an airsoft gun, which is like a BB gun, Lt. Noel Garcia said. The man was asked to leave and left without incident, Garcia said."

Can anyone confirm this to be true? and if so, Why an airsoft gun?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
What kind of hearing is this? Is it preliminary to anything else, or is it a day arguments are made and this judge decides whether the TRO stands or falls? I may be able to burn a vacation day and carpool others with me, but I wouldn't want to burn it and gas for anything but the most effective day to be there.

Even if it *looks* like *the* day, is it possible/likely/certain CADL would ask for postponement and the judge possibly/likely/certainly would grant postponement?

Your counsel probably has a good feel for all these questions. What does he think?

I gotta ask these questions, because vacation days are scarce and important, and the answers to these questions aren't clear from the info so far.

AFAIK, that is the day to answer the TRO and get it overturned. The complaint is separate from the TRO and may be addressed differently.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
My Thoughts

Here are some of my thoughts on the CADL Lawsuit and other assorted items (some or all of this you probably already know). I cannot believe the absolute BS in the lawsuit, I am pissed off!

1. I have read through some of the Complaint and Ex-Parte TRO. What the hell were they smoking when they wrote this up? Did the Ann Arbor Hash Bash move to Lansing/Ingham County without Media Coverage??? I know, I know, back on the subject at hand.

2. The CADL Press Release is incorrect and does not match the terms of the Signed Ex-Parte TRO (page 29), but does match the Ex-Parte Emergency Motion for TRO (Page 23). These inconsistencies should be brought up in the Responses to the TRO and the Complaint.

3. The CADL Mission Statements have clearly been violated during the past few weeks (http://cadl.org/about). By this TRO, they are definitely not "Community-based services and collections accessible to all", and by their actions of security following around OC'ers essentially harassing them, they are definitely not providing "Excellence in patron service".

4. Their Weapons Policy under #3 is not specific enough as to what is allowable and therefore cannot be followed by library patrons (http://cadl.org/about/policy/policy-SER103.pdf). This clearly needs to be addressed in the Responses.

5. Under their Code of Conduct, I believe that the ACLU might be interested in the following: "15. People may not solicit or beg in the library." I believe that Royal Oak just had some contact about this very same item.

6. Under their Code of Conduct, I believe that the following would be against MI Constitution Article I Section 11: "19. Patrons must provide identification when requested by library staff."

7. They believe that they are an authority and not subject to preemption since authorities are not specifically included in MCL 123.1101. The counter to that is that they are compromised of 2 entities that fall under the definition of local unit of government under MCL 123.1101 and the URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967 (Act 7 of 1967) clearly defines the 2 entities and the authority as Public Agencies in MCL 124.502 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-502) and they may only exercise "any power, privilege, or authority that the agencies share in common and that each might exercise separately" according to MCL 124-504 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-504). The only minor "gotcha" here may be MCL 124.503 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-503), but each separate municipalities' libraries would be adopting "bylaws and regulations governing the board and the library" coming under preemption in MCL 123.1102 and therefore MCL 124-504 would not stop that authority from being exercised, only that they cannot regulate certain items such as FIREARMS. If they could regulate rights, then no RIGHTS are safe within the walls of the CADL.

8. The TRO and Compliant encompass actions to restrict and/or eliminate the following RIGHTS of specific persons: US Constitution 1A and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 5 for RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (carrying a firearm openly can be construed as a Political Statement) and US Constitution 2A and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 6 for the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

9. The TRO and Compliant encompass actions to restrict rights only of specific persons belonging to or affiliated with MOC, who have not been charged with nor convicted of any crime under Due Process of Law. This would create a class of persons that can Open Carry at CADL Locations as long as they are not affiliated with MOC. This would be a violation of Equal Protection Under Law based upon US Constitution 14A and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 2.

10. The TRO and Compliant claim persons are carrying unlawfully, carrying improperly, and are trespassing. Yet, the Lansing Police Department will refuse to respond to remove them from the premises. The statements are incongruous and the CADL should be "called onto the carpet" to answer questions on these. I would guess the entire District Library Board and the Library Director should be deposed and called to the stand to highlight their stupidity.

11. Within the TRO and Compliant, the District Library Board claims to have the authority under law to enact regulations concerning carry of firearms while at the same time claiming they have no adequate remedy at law from stopping people from carrying firearms. Priceless! Again, call them onto the carpet!

12. The statements within the TRO and Compliant regarding MOC Members being a danger carrying their firearms are not supported by any fact nor by any past incident within CADL. Statements like "accidental discharge" occurring with holstered firearms really takes the cake!

13. Denial of a Person's Rights does not cause them harm? Unbelievable!!!

I think that is enough for now...
 
Top